What lessons can be learned from the Neil Gaiman debacle?

A writer at Consequence of Sound discussed what she thought of the Neil Gaiman sexual abuse scandal, now that the Good Omens TV adaptation is over:

For decades, Neil Gaiman was one of the world’s most famous authors, in a world where famous authors are a rarity. His signature comic book series The Sandman is considered one of the most important and influential comics ever published, his novels have been massive best-sellers, and multiple movies and TV series have been made based on his work. His iconic leather jacket and black messy hair were instantly recognizable to anyone who’s been to a fan convention. He was a guest star on The Simpsons not once but twice. He was, at one point, a huge deal.

And now he isn't, for valid reasons. What I don't understand is how nobody ever questioned whether it was in good taste to turn Silver Scarab and Fury from Infinity Inc. into plot devices in Gaiman's machinations for his decidedly overrated Sandman series, which in the end were meaningless. And as noted earlier, how did he have veto power over what characters could have the Sandman name applied to them? All that did in the end was add to the harm doubtless caused to characters like the Golden Age Wesley Dodds. On the subject of his TV and film projects, it's told that:

The 2024 allegations had a cascading effect on all those projects. Dead Boy Detectives was canceled in August 2024 after one season. In the summer of 2025, The Sandman wrapped things up with Season 2 (despite there being plenty more material left in the original comics). And as for that one remaining unreleased project, Anansi Boys star Delroy Lindo told EW in 2025 that “I don’t think that’ll ever see the light of day. It’s too bad on many levels, but I was really excited to do it.”

Lindo did express optimism for the show one day being seen: “Maybe it’ll be released. This is another reason to knock on wood.” It’s natural for Lindo to want to see a project he worked hard on not linger in the void. It’s also worth noting that Anansi Boys featured a largely Black cast, and there’s something uncomfortable about it being shelved while the final installments of Good Omens and The Sandman, led by white actors, did manage to make it to our screens.

Well, that can suggest that, despite all efforts made by the woke crowd to make it seem to the contrary, there is still favoratism in Hollywood that puts such a huge value on productions with mainly white leads, while productions with Black leads have no such luxury. Seriously, the Sandman TV show should've ended after just half a season, and chances are it'll all be forgotten as the overrated slop the comics definitely were.

It’s all part of the same uncomfortable calculus we’ve been stuck doing since 2017, as the worst qualities of one-time favorites have been exposed, leaving those who believe the victims scrambling for the most correct answer to these ethically murky (at best) situations. For many, Gaiman was a pop culture god on the level of Joss Whedon or Woody Allen. His fall from grace happened later than theirs, but the impact has been similar for fans, left to grapple with how they feel about their beloved favorites in the wake of knowing very unpleasant things about them.

Beyond being a fan of his work, I’ve interviewed Gaiman four times over the course of my career, including two occasions in person. I wish I could tell you that when I was sitting opposite him, I had some sort of sneaky feeling that he was capable of great harm, but I can’t. He had a bit of an ego about him, but it was easy to accept that as a natural consequence of being literally one of the most famous writers of his generation. Otherwise, the mask never slipped.

Creators like Dan Harmon have come back from rough tales of their behavior with thorough apologies, but Gaiman has firmly denied that there’s any truth to the multiple accounts of abuse, leaving these reports to fester in the imagination rather than heal. It’s a lack of self-awareness that’s disappointing to witness, though it’s far from the only disappointment now associated with Gaiman’s legacy. The real disappointment comes from knowing that an author so many believed to be capable of deep empathy was allegedly capable of empathy’s exact opposite.

On this, I think it would be recommended to consider a research report related to the Timothy Busfield sexual abuse scandal, where a point is made that, "The reality is that having a good guy persona is not incongruous with being a predator, said Northeastern University experts on sexual and domestic violence." It can also be described as a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing persona, and there's sadly only so many slimy figures in entertainment and elsewhere who've used that tactic to their advantage. But why cite Woody Allen? Since no concrete case was ever made against him, and he seems to have recovered in reputation in the past few years, citing him as an example doesn't work well. Whedon, by contrast, was accused of abusing Charisma Carpenter just for getting pregnant, and that alone is enough to look upon him in disgrace, considering she'd been a victim of a serious crime in the early 90s.

The rise of nerd culture in the mainstream was made possible in part by deifying creators. But gods complicate things. Maybe it’s best to let them fade away. Neil Gaiman included.

On that, I think plenty can agree the time has come to stop putting "celebrities" on pedastals, because in the long run, it's not helping a bit. If there's an important lesson to learn in these debacles, it's that judgement of persona is seriously needed, if they're to be celebrated at all.

Some history of Doonesbury's Garry Trudeau

The UK Guardian wrote about the history of cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who created the Doonesbury comic strip in the late 60s/early 70s, and how he developed it as a liberal-leaning tale over the years, one where the characters age in contrast to Peanuts, where they don't. And here's an example of the politics it emphasized:

Coming from an all-male prep school, Trudeau arrived at Yale with his own archaic views about women, and his earliest comic strips displayed sexism. However, his worldview was rapidly upended when he began dating a woman hailing from three generations of feminists. “She gave him an education, a crash course,” Kendall notes. “He quickly developed and got it.”

This awakening birthed the character Joanie Caucus, a middle-aged woman who leaves her husband to go to law school, cementing Trudeau as a mainstream advocate for feminism in the 1970s.

This capacity for personal and artistic evolution is, for Kendall, Trudeau’s most defining and admirable trait. “I feel like in this culture right now, there are a lot of people, particularly men, who kind of get stuck in adolescent mode. The one thing about Garry that moves me is his development and growth.”

This extended to his depiction of war. In his early 20s, Trudeau drew strips featuring the character B.D. (named after the Yale quarterback Brian Dowling) going to Vietnam merely to avoid writing a college term paper. Decades later, during the Iraq war, an older, wiser Trudeau depicted B.D. losing a leg and suffering from PTSD – a storyline handled with depth and care.

Trudeau also demonstrated a sensitive understanding of race and religion, mainstreaming Jewish characters like the radical student leader Mark Slackmeyer, and capturing the nuanced generational divides between assimilationist parents and their radicalised children.

Be that as it may, his left-wing view of issues like the Vietnam war and even the Iraq war, which seemed to be that they should never have been carried out at all, is dismaying in hindsight. Why, surely "radical" isn't also a concerning description? The way Mark's characterized looks awfully absurd by today's standards, where you have school students radicalized against figures with backgrounds like his. Come to think of it, does Trudeau even still care about whether children are radicalized, if he ever did at all? And if you needed another clue what's wrong with Trudeau's approach, it's what he thinks of Donald Trump, and has for a long time:

Currently, Trudeau is only producing fresh Sunday strips – with the dailies existing as “Doonesbury Classic” reruns – and about a third of his new output focuses entirely on Donald Trump.

Trudeau has been tracking Trump since 1987, recognising him early on as an outrageous, narcissistic character, frequently placing him in adventures with the Doonesbury gang. Kendall says: “Trump is a very colourful character. Trump’s hair and various body parts are fun for the cartoonist. I guess he wants to talk about the effect of Trumpism on the Doonesbury gang and how it’s affecting the baby boomers, not just American politics, but American culture as well.” [...]

This is a tough moment for baby boomers who won struggles for feminism and civil rights in the 1960s only to see many of those gains stalled or reversed by Trump, the Republican party and a rightwing supreme court. Can Trudeau remain optimistic about America? His biographer thinks so.

Wow, so all Trump's capable of doing is taking apart supposed achievements made by feminists, which really wasn't much, or they let deteriorate themselves after they were fine with LGBT activists taking apart anything to do with women's safety and dignity. I once read Doonesbury many years ago, but today, can't say I'm so impressed with it in hindsight, realizing Trudeau followed a leftist anti-war narrative that was sadly cemented by the disastrous way the Vietnam war was handled, one that never sought to dismantle the commie leadership in the country's north. I do recall a few strips where Trump was drawn in, depicted acting chummy with figures like Duke, who was depicted as a drug addict, and was in some ways meant to be a de facto baddie, perhaps even a caricature of conservatives. Well, no surprise, really.

I really don't see the point of Doonesbury today, based on how pretentious Trudeau really was in the long run, and Trudeau lost his way morally over a decade ago. I'm sure there's politically emphasizing comic strips on the market worth reading, but at this point, I wouldn't consider Doonesbury one of them.

Polygon says The Boys TV show failed to live up to the comic's "strongest qualities"

A writer at Polygon's claiming The Boys series didn't live up to whatever potential the comics by Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson supposedly had, but continues the claim its one of the "best" comics ever on the market:

When Amazon's adaptation of The Boys was announced, I was thrilled. Garth Ennis is my favorite comics writer, and The Boys occupies a stable spot on my Mount Rushmore of best comics of all time right alongside Preacher, Planetary, and The Invisibles. At the same time, AMC's then-recent disappointing adaptation of Preacher had already shown me that the Irish writer’s trademark blend of realistic characters and surreal situations doesn’t necessarily translate to TV.

Watching The Boys on Prime Video felt like eating pineapple pizza: First, you bite in, driven by curiosity over a new spin on something you love; then, the flavor creeps in, and you realize what a mistake this was; finally, you finish it because wasting food is wrong, while contemplating all your terrible life choices. Not that I would ever eat pineapple pizza, to be clear, but I did sit through five seasons of The Boys, and the only positive outcome is that it reminded me just how excellent the comics are.

However, for some “diabolical” reason, at some point during the airing of the show, disparaging the comics became customary among YouTubers and content creators looking for a nice algorithm boost. Panels were posted out of context, highlighting the most graphic and ridiculous aspects of the story while ignoring its robust narrative and character development. Now that the show has ended, people are bringing up its many flaws as a counterpoint, but rather than fueling pointless factionalism, it’s more constructive to focus on explaining why The Boys is one of the best superhero comics you’ll ever read.

No it isn't. A comic emphasizing crudeness and jarring violence does not rate high on my wish list. Nor does a tale making it look like heroes' failure is something to enjoy more than victory. It sounds like the writer's trying the classic cliche of saying the violence was the whole point, as though that actually makes it good on its own, though it sure is funny how surrealism gets a pass here when comics coming from different writers who're less obsessed with graphic violence would likely never get the same acceptance based on their approach to scriptwriting. What's so "robust" about Ennis' comic?

It’s not a secret that Amazon’s The Boys is politically charged, which makes its message a lot less effective than the comics’. Besides on-the-nose references to a certain blonde President, some watchers argued that it’s never actually clear what specific policies the show is satirizing. Sure, there’s the mandatory MAGA-pandering, but Homelander doesn’t lock up immigrants (even if he does start throwing dissenting citizens into work camps in season 5). The show’s assumed anti-Fascist stance also clashes with the refusal to acknowledge the Tomer Capone controversy. More importantly, while people can have different opinions on politics, it’s hard to find someone who disagrees with “big, greedy corporations are bad.”

But if The Boys comics were simply about corporate greed, the series would have been remembered as just another satire of the superhero genre and nothing more. Instead, Ennis does what he does best, portraying painfully realistic characters who struggle through lives where trauma and violence are always entwined. William “Billy” Butcher is the main character of the story, but he’s not the protagonist. That role goes to Hugh "Wee Hughie" Campbell, who acts as the readers’ anchor and the writer’s point of view.

Sounds almost like some of Tom King's stories that allegedly build upon trauma. On the topic of Tomer Capone, it sounds like the leftist viewership of this series despised that he would serve with the IDF for defending the country (which AOL unshockingly distorts, long after October 7, 2023), though even if he did, or still upholds his army career, that doesn't make the show worth watching, based on its own leftism, and that of the comics it adapts. Nor does the alleged critique of corporate greed, which I assume was added to the story to appease conservatives and liberals who take issue with corporatism. But it's entirely possible to write up a story, satirical or otherwise, that focuses on corporate subjects without resorting to the kind of mayhem The Boys does, and Ennis sadly didn't do that.

The stark contrast between the two has a purpose: Butcher is big, strong, and handsome. He’s a tough guy who gets things done no matter the cost. As readers, it’s natural to gravitate towards him for the majority of the story since he represents the stereotype of the cool anti-hero that comics started relying upon from the 1980s. But Ennis, who wrote some of the best Punisher stories, knows what hides behind that costume: violence as a way to exorcize trauma that will never go away. The comics’ final arc almost mocks readers for liking Butcher when he turns out to be a genocidal maniac who is not any better than the wretched “‘supes” he wants to kill, including Homelander. It’s plain, meek Hughie who does the right thing in the end. [...]

TV Butcher still hates Homelander — he did rape his wife — and transfers that hatred to all the ‘supes, but the show really fails to deliver on the background to that hatred, which the comics explore in the six-issue limited series Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker. This tells the story of Butcher before The Boys: a man warped by domestic violence who gets one shot at redemption, a chance meeting with Becky. The woman becomes Butcher’s salvation, but he’s always doubting how long it will be before the beast comes out again. When Becky dies as a consequence of Homelander’s alleged rape, that’s not simply the trigger to a classic revenge story. The subtle suggestion is that this is what Billy was waiting for: an excuse to embrace his violent impulses again.

I still don't see what's so fantastic about any of this either. All I see is a tale built on repellent violence, physical and sexual, that offers no joy, and it's a shame there's whole generations who're buying into Ennis' vision, hook line and sinker. The leftist angle certainly doesn't help. What's really head-shaking is how nobody conservative seems to care enough today to create comics with visions to counter what Ennis pushes here, and that's one more reason why these kind of embarrassments like the Boys will continue to be produced for a long time, and receive all the TV and film adaptations they don't need. What "qualities" does a story like the Boys have to "live up to"? There really aren't any.

Another "doomscroller" seeks a cure in comic reading

In a case somewhat similar to this earlier one, a writer at the Rockland County Times talks about having found a cure for "doomscrolling" on social media by turning to comics:

All my life I’ve been reading comic books. Starting in elementary school, I used to frequent Funny Business which was formerly in Nyack but has since closed, for all my monthly issues. I read them incessantly, even counting them towards my reading logs, much to my teachers’ frustration. Even now, I still love the medium. The fantastic stories and incredible art alone make picking up a comic book worth it, but something else that sweetens the deal is the lack of distraction.

I am, unfortunately, addicted to doom scrolling, as I’m sure a lot of people are. For those who don’t know, “doom scrolling” is when you scroll on social media for minutes, maybe even hours on end, in an endless depressive stream of content designed to hook you. Scrolling is addicting, I often can’t bring myself to stop even when I want to. It’s like a drug in all honesty. Algorithms incentivize you to stay scrolling. Be it on Twitter, Instagram, or Tiktok, the whole point of those apps are to keep you hooked and engaging with them. The sad reality is that we’re all susceptible, and many of us are already hooked.

I’ve been bringing myself back to reality through comic books. I’ll admit, I most often read them on my iPad. Not exactly a screenless activity. I have apps that give me access to the entire Marvel and DC back catalogues for a small fee every month, and it’s worth it. A major problem with comics is the price, especially for a physical copy of a given comic. The apps I use circumvent that, allowing me to read most comics published by DC or Marvel without breaking my bank. I find my brain to be calmer, I’m more focused, and I’m less depressed. Yes it’s all still happening on a screen, but I believe that it’s not the screen that is dangerous, but what’s happening on it.

On this, one must wonder what kind of DC/Marvel comics he's reading, because if it's the mega-modern woke stuff, then what's the point of this puff piece?

We’re in a time where so much of the “art” we engage with has been auto-generated by a machine. Videos and photos, once considered mediums of truth, are now suspect due to the influx of AI generated material. The brain rot that ensues doesn’t just threaten art in high concept, but it threatens our way of engaging with the world and with other people. It’s important to disengage with scrolling, and reengage with human made art. Comics give you that. The stories are written by people, drawn by people, lettered by people, and made for people. The work is both visually stimulating and creatively engaging in a way that has become lost to so many people.

But what about much of Marvel/DC's output over the past quarter century? What's so great about that, assuming the writer's "engaging" with any of it? There's no description of anything he read, so how can we judge?

With the success of film franchises like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or TV shows like The Boys or Invincible, media that has been adapted from comics are more popular than ever. The original medium those stories were told in give the audience a taste of something that is hard to come by now. Maybe your version of this isn’t comics. Maybe it’s traditional literature, or drawing, or just going on a walk. Whatever it is, make sure you do it. Be a person in the world who engages with human made art, who makes art yourself. No one needs to be a world renowned artist or culture critique. It’s not about that. It’s about getting back in touch with who you are as a person. Where your interests lie when you’re not being force fed “get ready with me” videos, is where your true self is. Bring yourself back to you, read a comic book.

I can't tell clearly if this is a college paper, but it sure comes off sounding like one, and perhaps the article drew from a local college paper through wire services. The movies are on the decline, enthusiasm for cinematic adaptations isn't what it used to be, yet we keep being lectured the films are soaring all over the place. And a citation for the Boys TV show is decidedly reason enough to give pause.

I will give the article this: AI does have a downside, and internet addiction is a problem too, much like being a TV couch potato in decades past. But what the article's ambiguous about is the entertainment value and lack of citations for whatever titles and fictional characters interest the writer. Without that, it all comes off rather unconvincing.

Tony Isabella villifies ICE in a letter to a newspaper

The leftist veteran comics writer who decided to take up LGBT identity politics at least a year ago, and has to date shown no signs of quitting that insanity, recently wrote a letter to the newspaper of an Ohio city, where he attacked ICE for trying to clear dangerous illegal immigrants out of the country and try to make the USA safe again. First, here's one of his sad forays into transsexuality he's recounting:

April 11: I had an amazing night out with LGBTQ+ friends. Though circumstances made it necessary for me to present in boy mode, I was correctly gendered everywhere we went. That means the world to someone like me.

Naturally, it's regrettable he's still sticking tight with these bizarre identity politics, over a year since he first declared this is how he wants to be known/remembered. Now, here's the letter he wrote to a local paper:

April 19: The (Medina) Gazette ran my letter on immigration and ICE. As I do with all my current work, I signed it “Jenny Blake Isabella.” Here’s that letter:

I’m 74 years old and have lived in Medina for over forty years. I love our charming city, especially because it has shown it can move forward without losing that charm. That is a rare precious quality.

There are two things Medina doesn’t need. It doesn’t need to be a sanctuary city and it most definitely doesn’t need to have an ICE presence, much less welcome that presence.

If Medina has any immigrant problem, it’s that we clearly don’t have enough immigrants to fill all those jobs we see advertised on street signs and elsewhere. Our country was built on willing immigrants to our nation and slaves kidnapped and brought here against their will. Both of these groups have made innumerable contributions to the United States and our lives would be poorer without their genius and hard work. Sadly, the historical truth of those who came here, willingly or unwilling, are downplayed by too many. Indeed, some seek to erase that history.

As for ICE, why would anyone who has witnessed its brutal, cruel and lawless conduct elsewhere want to bring that madness to our city? In its present form, ICE should not be welcome anywhere in the United States.

If our council needs to enact any legislation concerning ICE, it should be to require them to follow the same high standards as our terrific Medina police force. No masks. Wearing name tags. No seizures without real judicial authorization. No absurd shows of force to intimidate people. Being held accountable when they break the law. What is proper for our police force should be the standard for any law enforcement that comes to our city.

And what proof does he have that ICE is nothing but evil and sadistic, yet no illegal migrant could ever be the same? Does he even realize some of the illegal immigrants are ISIS agents? It's very sad but perhaps predictable he'd want to go as far as lionizing illegal immigration too, and one can only wonder if Isabella still believes in any lessons he'd written in past comics that crime doesn't pay. What next, will it turn out he believes Armenians who were persecuted by Azerbaijan should be turned away from the USA and ignored by contrast? There's only so much violent crime committed by illegal immigrants in the past few years alone, and Isabella turns a deaf ear and blind to all of that.

On the subject of masks, Isabella seems unaware there's police anti-terror squads in Europe whose operatives wear ski masks to protect their identities, not because they're some sort of totalitarian enforcement minions. And where does he get the notion ICE's whole purpose is to intimidate people? Certainly not innocents who uphold the law. He also turns his back to ICE officials who were attacked by illegal immigrants and other lawbreakers, and then has the gall to tell us ICE breaks the law? Utterly shameful.

It's head-shaking how somebody like Isabella would even want to work in comicdom's mainstream years before if this is what he believes now, which has the effect of making his past work look like a joke. And now, he even has the gall to do it under an identity politics.

South Park staff continue to explain why they're no longer relevant

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says South Park co-creator Trey Parker is boomeranging back on still more cliches attacking Donald Trump:

South Park co-creator Trey Parker once mocked phony accolades for unimpressive people with the phrase “stunning and brave.” Now, he’s become the butt of that very joke, claiming his TV writers face a real threat from the U.S. military with Trump as Commander-in-Chief.

Posing as an oppressed artiste, Parker celebrated how brave he is to oppose Trump — like everyone else in Hollywood — with his long-running cartoon series during his comments as the TV Academy doled out awards to seven TV projects on Wednesday, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

[...] He went on to praise himself and co-creator Matt Stone for their bravery in attacking Trump, saying he and his staff are fearless, “especially this year when we started saying like, ‘OK, so this is the show we’re going to do,’ and they’re like, ‘Oh, OK — that’s gonna really piss some people off.”

He added that one of the reasons he’s so brave is because Trump has soldiers who supposedly would lay siege to their air-conditioned writers’ room.

And what's so brave about censoring the Muhammed cartoons episode they once filmed? Practically nothing, but it's been clear for years Parker and Stone were phonies to begin with, and in the past several months, having been turning out some of the most horrific "jokes" possible:

In recent episodes, the show called Secretary of War Pete Hegseth a “fucking douche,” repeatedly showed Donald Trump having sexual relations with Satan and his own vice president, and even portrayed Trump having an anti-Christ baby with Satan.

I just don't understand what's so funny about "humor" like that. Besides, if they never subjected leftist figures to such "parody", that's telling. Nothing brave about this.

Much like the Simpsons, South Park's been on the air far too long at nearly 3 decades, and it's time it went off the air for a change. Unfortunately, it's apparent they have no intention of stopping, no matter how pathetic South Park's become by this stage.

Mandalorian & Grogu's box office intake is very poor

World of Reel reports the box office gross for the new Mandalorian movie, the first Star Wars related theatrical film in several years and drawing from the TV show, has been very mediocre:

“The Mandalorian & Grogu” is off to a, what you might call, modest but closely watched start at the North American box office, earning about $11-$12M in Thursday night previews after screenings began early at 2 p.m.

That figure trails the $14.1M preview haul of “Solo: A Star Wars Story,” which ultimately opened to $84M over three days and $103M over the four-day Memorial Day frame — numbers considered disappointing for the franchise at the time.

This aligns with $80M 3-day tracking I had mentioned a few weeks ago. It would not be a good performance for a Star Wars movie, an IP that used to tower in Hollywood.

Then, John Nolte at Breitbart followed up on the news with the following:

The Disney Grooming Syndicate’s return to Star Wars feature films has resulted in the lowest opening ever for a Disney Star Wars movie. If you figure inflation in, it’s the lowest opening since 1999.

The Mandalorian and Grogu thudded over the Friday-Saturday-Sunday with just $81 million. With the extra day due to the four-day Memorial Day weekend, it is expected to bellyflop at right around $97 million.

[...] What we can say for a fact is that Disney’s Woke Gestapo killed what had been the case for nearly 50 years, and that was Star Wars as an “event movie.”

Yes, but let's not forget how they took divisive steps 5 years ago by firing and blacklisting Gina Carano from the TV show over her politics. That didn't help the original series' reputation, and if much of the audience simply stopped caring about the Mandalorian based on that, it figures.

If we were to also take one of the official reviews of the film as an example, let's try this one from Sunshine State Cineplex:

Bringing Din Djarin to the big screen seems like a great idea on paper. As an open defender of the series, even as public opinion has seemingly turned against it, The Mandalorian was a breath of fresh air to open up the world around Star Wars. However, The Mandalorian and Grogu has two massive problems that it cannot shake: a lack of stakes and really terrible CGI.

The first is the biggest issue facing the Star Wars franchise as a whole. While scenes with Grogu remain adorable and brilliant, he’s also become something of an overpowered icon. There is zero percent chance that Disney and Lucasfilm will let anything happen to the character. Favreau cannot craft a scene that actually builds tension while Grogu is on screen.

Even with Mando, there are scenes where we could imagine Pascal and the actors who bring the character to life actually face consequences. Instead, as long as Grogu is around, we know that his powers are going to protect Din. There’s a moment that feels like it was ripped from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, but because we know Grogu is here to rescue Din, we never actually fear losing the hero.

Sounds like Grogu's little more than a Mary Sue here. Or leads to similar situations for even the star character, played as he is by an actor who's obsessed with divisive leftism. With that kind of approach, no wonder we couldn't expect villains who provide authentic challenges to the hero in the story, combat-based or otherwise. That's what modern storytelling in comics and movies seems to have come down to at times.

If this Mandalorian movie is destined for freefall, I'm not going to care, and as the review hints, the firing of Carano had quite an impact on the series' reception. Unfortunately, there's no chance for now that Disney will ever show any remorse or reevaluate their MO.

Actress playing Supergirl continues to damage her reputation

According to John Nolte at Breitbart, the actress playing Supergirl in this summer's new live action adaptation (based on Tom King's writings, no less) is continuing to alienate the audience, going so far as to attack "Christian dads":

Anyway, after starting this fight back in March, Little Miss Entitled-Fake-Trailblazer is now responding to the criticism she desperately sought by ridiculing “Christian Dads.”

“I guess women know that this is just how it’s always been, unfortunately,” Alcock said of the criticism over her retarded comments back in March. “And it’s from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone’s name and then ‘Dad of four, Christian,’ which is hilarious to me. But I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? If you’re pissing the right kind of people off, you’re doing OK.”

Man alive.

Okay, it’s not all her fault. She’s pretty young and was even younger when fame arrived a few years ago with HBO’s House of Dragon. Fame warps you, especially at that age, and especially in a Hollywood that no longer stops its young stars from imploding like this. Sure, Mickey Rooney was an unholy terror in real life, but his public persona was so expertly managed that he became the biggest movie star in the world for a few years.

There’s only one commodity that makes you a movie star, and that’s goodwill. Denzel Washington and Sandra Bullock are still major draws in their dotage. Why? Because we like them.

If Supergirl flops, and its insufferable star sure seems determined to make that happen, Hollywood’s going to call us sexist, aren’t they?

Alas, yes. Alcock's taking everything from bad to worse by repeating a mistake potentially dozens of performers are making - spouting divisive political rhetoric before the official release of the film in question. And what's additionally angering is how Otto Binder and Al Plastino's Silver Age creation, the Maid of Might, is once again being done an injustice, perhaps worse than what the 1984 Supergirl movie did, all for the sake of a divisive screenplay coupled with equally divisive politics, and its star goes so far as to insult religious and fathers.

Let's be perfectly clear. I am as big a fan of Supergirl as of Superman, but I'm not going to watch a film whose star goes galaxies out of her way to alienate more than half the audience, which has become a sad staple of quite a few would-be rising "stars" in over a decade. Besides, with a screenplay relying entirely on what a modern awful writer like Tom King concocted back in the comics only confirms the filmmakers weren't seeking to build a merit-based story. If the new film fails, I'm not going to feel one bit sorry. All I'm sorry about is how the past work of late veterans like Binder and Plastino was desecrated for the sake of only so much modern propaganda, now culminating in shoddy movies that don't do any favors for the creations either.

Update: World of Reel says the financial estimations for the film aren't good:

The question now is whether “Supergirl” can continue that momentum. However, forecasts from Box Office Theory currently predict a domestic debut between $47M and $65M, putting it somewhere between “The Marvels” territory and “Black Adam,” which opened to $67 domestically.

“Supergirl,” which opens June 26, 2026, is squeezed between several major family blockbusters, including “Toy Story 5,” “Minions & Monsters,” and Disney’s live-action “Moana.” However, the main issue surrounding the film is that the marketing campaign simply hasn’t generated much excitement. That softer buzz has fueled concerns that the movie could either emerge as a modest performer or become one of the summer’s bigger disappointments.

Notice how Superman is heavily featured in recent promotional material for “Supergirl,” despite the character reportedly only having a cameo role in the film — that’s Warner Bros. trying to play it safe.

I wonder how Dwayne Johnson feels about his Black Adam "vanity project" after at least a few years? Even at a PG-13 level, the whole approach was one of the most repellent a film of that sort could employ, and such a shoddy film is best forgotten.

Update 2: Breitbart's John Nolte has followed up:

Supergirl is the second title to arrive from the rebooted DC Studios, which is run by writer-director James Gunn. The first title was 2025’s Superman, and despite the desperate spin and a sequel already in production, Superman did not do all that well at the box office. A $619 million global take when the production and promotion budget easily exceeded $300 million is barely breaking even.

Additionally, James Gunn’s Superman took no real hold in our cultural imagination. It’s just kind of … there.

The next test for Gunn’s vision of the DC Studios Universe is Supergirl, and if it bombs, as is projected here, Gunn’s position overseeing this reboot of some of America’s most popular superheroes could end pretty quickly, especially when Paramount takes over the studio in the upcoming merger.

From where I sit, besides making a mediocre Superman movie, Gunn’s choices have also been bizarre. Later this year, Gunn’s company will release Clayface, a movie no one asked for. He also gave us two seasons of The Peacemaker before it disappeared without a trace. Next up is Lanterns, because the Green Lantern is so widely popular.

And now he’s turned Supergirl into a drunken strumpet and cast a mouthy harridan as his lead, who is already out alienating the fanbase (guys) by pre-blaming this potential flop on us male sexists who can’t deal with female heroes, even though Pam Grier and Alien’s Ripley character are now iconic and still embraced by men everywhere.

By Clayface, do they mean another Batman rogues gallery member? I'm not wasting money on yet another movie spotlighting a villain. Even the Flash's adversaries wouldn't a good example for a film focus. Seriously, I hope this whole obsession with flooding the market with superhero films galore will come to an end soon, because it's long become boring, and the sources the screenwriters draw from are some of the worst around. There's no need for them anymore.

Star of live action Muslim Ms. Marvel adaptation turns to comics writing

Variety reports the actress Iman Vellani, star of the live action Muslim Ms. Marvel TV show, is now writing comics herself, and in partnership with a writer/publisher who prefers the dark:

Iman Vellani, known for playing Kamala Khan in “Ms. Marvel,” will make her solo comics writing debut with “Chachu,” a five-issue neo-noir miniseries illustrated by Marianna Ignazzi and colored by Jordie Bellaire, set for release from Image Comics and Tiny Onion on Aug. 5.

Set in 1979, the series follows Leila, a 19-year-old Pakistani-Canadian young woman with a love of film and pulp novels who travels to California to reconnect with her estranged uncle – a semi-retired private eye once celebrated for having married the starlet he was originally hired to find. When that same wife vanishes again, uncle and niece find themselves on an unplanned road-trip investigation, one that pushes Leila’s first taste of adulthood into a reckoning with family secrets and the myths both have built around their lives.

“I’ve always been deeply curious about comics as an art form because of their capacity to hold contradiction – arguably better than any other medium,” Vellani said. “That became especially meaningful to me while writing Chachu, which grew out of this tension between mourning my youth while I still have it, and an incessant urge to come of age already.”

[...] “Chachu” is being co-published with Tiny Onion, the independent production house founded by James Tynion IV, co-creator of “Something is Killing the Children” and “The Department of Truth,” which has been expanding beyond comics into film, animation, and video game development.

If it weren't for how she quite possibly upholds the Islamic propaganda the Muslim Ms. Marvel series was built on, this might be more interesting than it sounds, but coupled with how she's having her comic produced by Tynion, the leftist who dislikes capitalism and thinks the horror genre is greatest idea ever created, that's why this isn't something to be excited about. Also, what's this about comics holding "contradiction" better than other mediums? Even that's questionable and above all, trivial. Let's also not forget how attempts to translate the Muslim Ms. Marvel into live action have for the most part been a flop.

The speculator joke continues in the UK

The BBC announced more old pamphlets are being sold on auction over in Britain:

Two Marvel comic books have sold for a total of £11,440 at an auction house in Surrey.

A copy of the first edition of The Incredible Hulk, featuring the first appearance of the superhero, sold for £7,800 after going on auction at Ewbank's in Woking on Wednesday.

Another 1974 edition of the comic which features the first appearance of X-Men superhero Wolverine, also sold for £3,640.

The auction's big ticket item, a first edition of Amazing Spider-Man which featured the character's first appearance, failed to sell having been listed for between £10,000 and £15,000.

Well that's certainly amazing some buyers gave pause based on 5-digit sums, but this still isn't good there's consumers in Europe who're making a farce out of the medium by perpetuating the speculator nonsense that's been a sad staple in the USA for a long time. Why won't even they stop to consider this is only depriving many museums of history projects that would be better off stored under their auspices? And why won't the history community itself speak out about how the speculator market is doing more harm than good? It's totally depressing nobody cares.

Is Image's Chew comic going to be adapted to TV?

K945 reports an Image comic from the past decade, Chew, appears to be in development for a TV show:

I've never been shy about professing my love of Louisiana comic book creator Rob Guillory. I've said it once, and I'll say it again - he's a good guy, a really good human, and a GREAT artist. Whether he's drawing, writing, or doing both at the same time, he just has this knack of building believable & relatable worlds around truly outlandish and unbelievable ideas. The man is gifted.

[...] One property that I thought was ready made for television is Chew. Look, I get it, I'm clearly biased and a huge, huge fan. But, taking myself out of it, Chew is a pretty important piece of work. It won Eisner Awards, Harvey Awards, it is one of the most successful creator owned books of all-time...and it's so unique and inventive, there's nothing else like it on the market. Which is a rarity in today's world.

Way back in the day, Chew was going to be turned into an animated series starring Steven Yeun and Robin Williams. However, Robin Williams passed away during production and the project just never came together or saw the light of day. Well, now, it seems like Chew is getting a second chance at life.

[...] Rob and John Layman are throwing it back to the days of newspapers and magazines and releasing Chew as a serialized, one-page comic strip being released monthly and the new Comics! The Magazine.

This news might've been okay if it weren't for how far-left Layman happens to be, and if that's what he's like, Guillory can't be far behind. Besides, just because Chew won awards galore, does that alone make it worth adapting?

As for the late actor Williams, if that's whom they're talking about, he died by suicide, sadly enough, though I had no idea if he was ever working on projects like adapting Chew. That aside, from what I can tell, Chew is just another comic you could expect Image, in its current form, to have produced, and I really don't see what the fuss is about here.